About your Search

20131028
20131105
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 120 (some duplicates have been removed)
that is setforth in the ordinance. understate law and the constitution when the city imposes development fees such as this, the city must base those fees on a finding that there is a nexus between the amount of the fee charged and the impact of the fee. so before the board adopted the condominium oh conversion ordinance in june, the city hired a consultant on the impact of the affordable house is in the city. that study was part of the board's packet when you considered the condominium conversion ordinance in june. that study conclude that there is a nexus between condominium conversion and the need for affordable housing. that converting two condominiums creates additional need for affordable housing in the city and concluded that for condos that are worth $300,000 that convert the impact on the city in terms of affordable housing need is $21,000 and the impasse of conversion goes up depending on the value of the condominium oh as the value of the condominium oh goes up. the ordinance relied on that study and adopted as part of it's finding of that study and applied a $20,000 per unit fee fo
it was just an economic hardship, but it's much more than that. it's being disabled and i feel maybe the law missed that some of the tenants were in tic and some tenants might be disabled and having an up the -- tough time of finding offeredable housing in the city. my appeal is to appeal to your hearts and to understand that yeah, my economic hardship it's not something out of choice. it's purely based on my disability and it's my reality right now and i find completely it's my opinion, right? so i find completely contradictory that i have to pay at this point $8,000 that i don't have. i have to lend it from my family which i have to payback for future low income housing that i might go when i'm not planning to leave that home when it took me 3 years to find anytime, maybe when i'm dying, maybe i will leave my home. that's it. it took me 3 years to find it. i want you to know that i feel and i don't think i can speak for every disabled person but at least the people with the disability that they are bound to a wheelchair, that it's almost impossible to find accessible housing. we are left
, they are responsible for law enforcement and making sure that they are holding people accountable to obeying the law. they are going the extra mile with the outreach efforts. each and effort one of those officers is out and albert in particular, one of the things they add is do you want services. they offer that whether the hot team or any other entity is with them or not. i just want to make that point. they are there to enforce the law, but they have gone above and beyond and have been compassionate with the folks out there and of course doing what's in necessary when people are breaking the law. i do think the department of public health needs to do a lot more in its outreach effort. one of the things that you mentioned doctor roj that there was a time where you had on a daily basis outreach workers in the park area. you watched the numbers decline and now it's on an as needed basis. this is not a new problem. san francisco has a historical problem of homelessness of issues around mental health issues and the hate throughout the city and substance abuse issues. this is going to be something that
this year so many laws public safety and others that it compacts so to post this on the get hub and to allow get hub to be our way in which people what navigate to break it down to make t it usedable by other coders it's kind of like sailing we have had to learn with taking was and to have that on the screen in front of us and how we, in fact, our waters is exactly how get hub z is doing it. where your code is able to be found at mayor's office of civic innovation dot get hub dot l o slash open law. i'm excited to see what gets build and shared. and, of course, we're working with the open law project it's guided us to this kickoff. i'm excited to see something that's been to bureaucratic. by the way, i'm a lawyer my background i used to cause a lot of trouble in the city by you used to explain to a lot of bilingual folks in the city what their rights are. when i did the retina strict i had to explain to elderly people who only spoke chinese to help them exercise the law. that's one small example how a whole set of laws can be introduced to people so they won't have to go to a library full of
you have done without stating what you have done. as far as laws are concerns or whatever you call it, that's what i'm going to study and get the word and get back to san francisco and tell them, hey, remember i was here 2008, we haven't got no respect from the old redevelopment agency, case and point. look at what happened. black businesses have failed and you spent hundreds of millions of dollars to preserve for what they've done to us in the past, but it didn't work so those were failed efforts so what do you do about your failed efforts? something has to be done and you can go in history and i like the commission asked questions -- when you asked those questions all of them start going around because they didn't expect those questions to be asked. ladies and gentlemen i'm here to say, everything that you said for the delusion, all those facts and figures when you come to the next meeting, we're going to show you that those things that governor brown doesn't know what's going on but he will. >> thank you. do we have any speaker cards. >> i have no further request. >> thank you v
? >> the question is to codify what took place on state law a couple years ago. thank you very much. let's take public comment on the item. is there any public comment for item no. 1? public comment:at this time, members of the public may address the board on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the board will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. when the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the board has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the board must be exercised during the public comment portion of the calendar. each member of the public may address the board for up to 3 minutes. if it is demonstrated that comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the president may continue public comment to another time during the meeting. 1234 >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.. >> we ha
it will put, but we all already having issues and concerns enforcing current off leash laws and maintaining our current [inaudible] >> as i understand has there been a calculation whether it's by department or by the park service, of what that additional stress on our city parks will be? based on this plan? i had not seen it but i'm wondering if there is one >> no. we were waiting for the gg nra to determination to make that determination, and we would refer [inaudible] for analysis of that >> it's just it seems to me this is a very general cursory analysis of the impact of city parks and that's why was wanted to know if there was some sort of analysis that i was unaware of. >> the department has not done one >> okay. so, if there is an influx of additional dogs in the city dog play areas, all the way to non-dog play areas as well, that will increase wear and tear and maintenance fees for those parks? >> that is correct. if we see additional use of dogs and people in our parks it puts an additional strain on our resource object >> great. thank you very much >> thank you. >> okay, next i
months and that this was a violation of law. we submitted ten declarations from the people indicating the same, they had never seen her operate her food cart. and in argument, i expressed to the board and there was zero evidence from miss lewis that she ever operated her food cart, and no in her arguments and that is what we got to in the argument where, one of the commissioners said, let's hold on and maybe the operation at some point, and please, and that is why you continued this hearing until today. and this is to give miss lewis an opportunity to present some evidence, any evidence of ever operating her food cart. and three months later she has submitted a declaration and still, no evidence of her ever operating that food cart in san francisco during the period of time that is in question. the real issue here is not having to do with miss lewis and the african teas and coffee and any personal attack that she believes that she has been subjected to. the real issue is that miss lewis is a bad corporate citizen and has made numerous misstatements and the highlights of them are first
dissolution law, i wanted to go over the highlights. so we know at this point in the 20th month of dissolution, that enforceable obligations are the key to what is the agenda for successor agencies. we know that the dissolution law, although it requires successor agencies to wind down as quickly as possible allows activities to continue if they further preexisting enforceable obligations. we also know that in designing enforceable obligations and what can be spent for those, the state through the department of finance has primarily through the rock which you review every six months and submitted to the department of finance. under dissolution law dof has suggest discretion to reject the expenditures in the rock and challenge the existence of the obligations. enforceable obligations are broadly defined to design contract agreements and among other things obligations imposed by state law. so because of the relative uncertainty that we have about enforceable obligation because dof can review them, there was a procedure placed in the clean up legislation to the original dissolu
but isn't the 5 year prelims a local ordnance >> the state law that specifics the 5 years. >> oh, sorry. thank you >> commissioner. >> i understand that not just the amendment is before us but the entire piece of legislation still has to be enacted so we'll look at the earlier part from an earlier hearing. >> we discussed the sort of underlying july hearing but we have not taken action on that yet. >> commissioners. >> just a question on the state law change it was 10 years for an ellis act and it switched do i have any background on why that change was made at state level. >> i don't can the planning staff answer that question. >> i don't know that's a state law beyond the planning coincide. >> but it was true it was 10 years at one point and it's now 5 years. >> the city attorney mate know. >> i believe the ellis act has always contained a tiered number of business so if you go back into business in 5 years after 10 years there's more restrictions but i understand part of the ellis act has not been amended. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner sophie with the planning staf
of violations for further report of gifts and these are laws that are designed to represent those in the public from representing the interest of those who give them money instead. and in order for the society to protect itself, the city library had to sign, every other year under penalty of perjury that he attended ethics trainings on reporting gifts and in order for this society to protect itself, the city has to sign that he has taken training and after that he has signed the perjury that he had nothing to report, while he was receiving $65,000 per year, from the friends of the library. and these statements under the penalty of perjury had no effect on inducing the city library from making the required disclosures, the reason for the signature under the penalty of pergry is to make every violation willful and to create the constructive knowledge of the regulations. advice from the office and from the library department account ants and from the lawyers from the private non-profit providing money all had no effect in enducing city library to make the required disclosures, it goes without sayi
. >> the clerk: item 28. local firearm laws establish a item 29.[park code - harding park golf course temporary reduced greens fees] ordinance amending the park code to set temporary reduced greens fees for the harding park golf course from december 2, 2013, through no later than may 31, 2014, to accommodate the renovation of the greens; and making environmental findings. (recreation and park department) 1234 >> next item. 30. item 30: 130882: [park code - harding park golf course temporary reduced greens fees] ordinance amending the park code to set temporary reduced greens fees for the harding park golf course from december 2, 2013, through no later than may 31, 2014, to accommodate the renovation of the greens; and making environmental findings. recreation >> next item. 30. item 30: 130882: [park code - harding park golf course temporary reduced greens fees] ordinance amending the park code to set temporary reduced greens fees for the harding park golf course from december 2, 2013, through no later than may 31, 2014, to accommodate the renovation of the greens; and making environmental findi
this is true. it's definitely worth reading and i talks about zoning law and city politics and entrenched nonprofits. so i think he's on a very good subject and one that is worthy of consideration and i've often mentioned in comments i think we have to encourage old housing that is substandard to be sold and renovated priflg and used to build new housing for the same people in the same places. we're not seeking nearly enough and that might be the situation where people who are victims of crime coming from outside of san francisco. a good article to read and an article on the open forum by a woman who's a daughter of a fellow named william garf was a builder privately in the past and her contention is that inclusionary housing adds to the cost of low-cost housing being built and she points to the housing bill allergy governor jerry brown as appointed. and you know by state law you can satisfy all housing of protection levels will you not by inclusionary housing but it's a subject of many points. she says that it raises the cost of normal market rate lower or middle income housing that coul
in the castro area by allowing for the construction of in law in castro. we know we have affordability units particularly in castro. housing prices are absolutely through the roof. we have long time residents in the neighborhood in terms of housing are living on the edge. they are at risk of displacement. it's becoming harder and harder for them to stay in the neighborhood. addressing housing affordability is incredibly complex and there are a lot of pieces to the puzzle in terms of moving in the right direction. it took us many years to dig into this hole and it's going to take time to dig out. the one thing that we can do is to provide more flexibility in our housing policy and an allowing for in law units will for the addition of in law units will help. in law units according to hud, according to various academic studies are possibly the most affordable kind of non-subsidized housing that we have. they tend to be more modest units and in some ways in # inherently more afford able. they are allowed to go 1-2 units for in law units. they will not be able to expand the envelope of the build
's safe enough to do those, the department would enforce those as the law. >> how would you enforce it if you are not able to enforce it now? >> we are able to enforce it now because the park is closed after a certain amount of hours after 10:00 at night. >> but you are not necessarily enforcing it until 4:00 a.m.. >> it's a safety issue and lighting issue. >> what i'm trying to understand here because i know for example with alvin and captain corrals, they are issued citations during park closure time period and i know there is park closure legislation on the table. what i'm trying to understand with this report and what's on the table in terms of proposed legislation, how would it make a difference if there is no ability to enforce it during that critical time period? >> well, if there is no ability to enforce it during those critical time period we can still do outreach and find out those areas of where there were people living and getting them set up with the department of public health. >> but you won't do that because there is daylight safety concerns? >> correct. safety conce
on that yet. >> commissioners. >> just a question on the state law change it was 10 years for an ellis act and it switched do i have any background on why that change was made at state level. >> i don't can the planning staff answer that question. >> i don't know that's a state law beyond the planning coincide. >> but it was true it was 10 years at one point and it's now 5 years. >> the city attorney mate know. >> i believe the ellis act has always contained a tiered number of business so if you go back into business in 5 years after 10 years there's more restrictions but i understand part of the ellis act has not been amended. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner sophie with the planning staff. i received one letter from the san francisco association i will distribute that to you are the association recommended 3 modifications is that the 10 year term be reduced to 5 years and when the law becomes effective and if the unit has been lawfully removed an owner shall not be subject to this ordinance. i'll distribute that and i have a chart for the criteria for dpooshsz as well as the e
with disabilities. in context, the california state law is very, very broad and maybe even outdated. a person displaying a placard has the right to park for any unlimited amount of time without any payment at any green zone that you merchants pay for. we'll address some of that in our recommendations. now on the screen you'll see a list of the stakeholders. the names may not mean much to you in terms of who we are. there were 16 of us, but 9 of us had a disability. we're going to continue to stress that so you understand this is not a staff driven or staff dominated process /-ft the people with disabilities not only formed a majority of the full body, but we had an internal steering committee and people with disabilities were a majority of the steering committee. that committee was carla you johnson, myself, the point is you're getting input from the people directly affected by what we're recommending by what we suggested. let's go on then to the next slide. in this slide you'll see several cars parked each displaying a blue placard so we felt there were three challenges to finding park
attorneys office. the deferral program that's recognized in this law allows an applicant to request that dpw defer or hold off on collection of payment of the fee between the time of application and the time that the map is finally approved by the city which is, the approval of the map by the city allows it to be recorded and that allows the refinancing and the creation of the condominium process. so lend to that process depends on the city's processing time and the submissions of survey materials from the applicant. maybe the county is survey or can speak to that whether it's 6-9 months gap. it doesn't allow for the reduction of the amount. you still need to pay the fee. it just allows you more time to get your financial resources together to pay it. >> does this deferment policy have a fee structure? is there a way to break up the payments? >> i think that it would be up to dpw would have the discretion. so, for example, i think it would arguably allow someone to pay a little bit upfront when they apply. they can pay the other half or two-thirds that are due at the time of file map appro
. david chiu's decision to arrest me cost the law. >> members of the board, ray -- thus the state never intentionally confronts a man's sense intellectual or moral but on the his body. it is with superior physical strength. i was not born to be forced. i will breathe after my own fashion. let us see who is the strongest. what you see on the screen, is a letter that is september to the san francisco bay guardian. i'm here to talk about the letter. after it was found to violate the law the statement of economic interest, the library commission wanted to help. so what they decided to do is hold a series of discussions outside the public. these were to formulate and revise and statement which demonstrated for release. this was all done illegally. violation of the sunshine ordinance and the brown act. they then next directed a city employee to release the letter on official stationery to the san francisco bay guardian and to the public. after we raised these questions, they said we'll track it after it had been used legally. today i will discuss specifics about this letter. today i just wa
is a summary of the public meeting laws and public record laws, the attendance of a majorty members of at policy body at a recreational gathering is not a meeting, it is one gathering is not sponsored or organized by or for the policy body. and two, the majority of the members refrain from using the occasion to discuss business within the subject matter jurisdiction of the body. >> okay. >> does that mean a minority can? >> i would have thought that anyone can't. >> a minority. less than a majority of the body can always meet and discuss. the public notice agenda requirements etc., are for when there is a quorum of the body. but that also applies to the committees. >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> all right. >> public comment? >> this item? >> seeing none. the item is closed. >> announcements. >> getting to the end. >> announcements, colleagues, any announcements? >> seeing none, any public comment? >> seeing none, can we go on to the president's announcements? >> i have three announcements, we are almost at the end of the agenda, we are getting closer and, we are really almos
center for lesbian rights which established the first elder law for lgbt people. i was trained as a legal advocate in the 1970s in a special project by the california department of aging to are a parallel and community organizer for seniors in general and i worked in that capacity for many years. i came out as a lesbian in my 40s and when i moved here in 1988 i was pressuring my gratuidegree. i would like to say i served in another position and was active and traveled around the country for the educational advocacy for the rights of lgbt people and during that period i spoke with numerous national organized having to do with help and serves for elders such as the american society on aging and task force for lblt and national alzheimer's association. so i was had the great opportunity to bring to attention the unmet needs of a very large invisible population not only in california but throughout the country. which became some of the great work that was later recognized by the state department of the aging and other organizations throughout the country and with the federal officer on aging.
of the statutory interpretation and you look at the overall laws that are on the books and the words that are used and if that language is clear and unambiguous, then you don't dig further than that. although certainly people could argue that you can do that. i think this language is clear about the issuance of a notice. >> thank you. colleagues, any final questions to city staff? okay. at this time let me ask? >> supervisor tang? >> i just have one more question to process. maybe john gibner. if the board decides to approve the waiver or reduction, i just want to know what the following process would be if the process i will move forward if the appellant had paid the fee and no. 2, who is the body as to the waiver and reduction. >> deputy city attorney, john gibner. if the board decides to wave or reduce the fee, that would be a determination that the board would make based on findings that the nexus study does not apply or does not stand up in this case. the board would today articulate some findings to that effect to me and the clerks office. we would prepare and additional motion for next week
if i'm not. i'm sporting this and hope the department will peengs when the law took effect. it took effect in november of 18986 and ever single office conversion has used office allocation. before then the law was ♪ effect for the transportation fee and affordable housing. they came through as a downtown plan and a lot of us spend a lot of effort to get those in place. i'm glad this one is doing it right and i wish others would do it right and i'm looking at you planning department >> is there any additional public comment? okay public comment is closed. commissioner moore >> second. >> i'm sorry commissioner. >> i want to comment up until earlier this year i could have had an interest within 5 hundred feet but there's no more conflict. >> thank you, commissioner. >> if there's nothing else commissioners there's a motion to approve with conditions. with that, (calling names) so moved, commissioners, passion 6 to one and places you on item 13 for case 2013 at 220725th street a request for a mandatory discretionary review >> good afternoon the item is a mandatory discretiona
want to thank law enforcement as well as for your input in contrast this legislation and thank you sheriff and the police departments who helped craft this legislation. i most of all, i didn't bring this legislation forward as the defense economy did interest i represent a district about 50 percent of usor foreign-born so some people on the street have experience with immigration that are really unfair to the contributions they're making in san francisco but the organizing that was good morning and the conversation was very, very strong and actually passing this legislation and doing the advocacy puts you tell u us at a higher level to protect immigrants. and the relationship we build between government and community will strengthen our police efforts to make us safer. and most of all, i want to thank people like nellie who got entangled as a victim and later spent 8 months facing deportation procedures. no one should have to have fear of calling the police wondering if they're going to get deported. people should be able to come forward as witnesses or victims and this legislation
to have zero waste in your offices. and the laws in california around the waste started with 8939 this was a state wide goal that requires all municipality to generate 50 percent of the material that they generated from the landfill by the year 2000 and steep fines could be incurd for any that did not comply. san francisco surpassed the 50 percent goal, and wanted to expand the goal and aim higher. so the board of supervisors and the commission on the environment passed a 75 percent landfill deversion resolution by 2010. and a zero waste goal by 2020. and as you know, san francisco has the highest landfill deversion rate of any large city in the country and we divert 50 percent of the material that we generate from the landfill and so that was great. and we are well known for the mandatory recycling law. and this requires everyone in san francisco and not just government, but residents and visitors to properly separate into recyclables and compost and trash and this really quicked up the composting. this is interesting, and this san francisco, deversion and disposal and generation
health care. setting aside in law that the money will be there is a promise. until we condominium the enemy of money to make those commitments work is still a promise. the commitment comes when i put the effort on the table to make health care sewer secure. the promise is nice but we have to figure out how to deliver and the funds that are available so far from the measure that the supervisor vitals i cites are again, a nice probable but that's not realty. when we passed prop a we should know where the resources come from >> we hope this information has been information active. please visit the san francisco sf elections.org. remember the voting t is available in city hall be sure to vo november 5th. >> ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ hi, i'm marconi i'm here to discuss prop b the measure will be before the voters on test november 5th. they have a proposed site called - prop c is an referendum. a referendum is the process by which the voters can proof or reject legislation. a 3 point plus acres is on washington street. on 2012 the board of supervisors approved the construction of two
. sequa is a state law but the actual body of law has been around since the 1970s but it's implemented locally it's all implemented right here in the planning department trying to take state rules and mcthem work on a local effort. in terms of who endorses sequa the court deal with it. the preservation issues came forward in the 1970s. that's why we're here to talk about the historic issues related to sequa. i don't want to turn this into a technical conversation but it's important to talk about the things in san francisco that doesn't apply anywhere else in california. it applies to discretion projects only. this is one thing in most jurisdictions in california building permits are not discretionary. if you're project complies with the building code you get our permit. that's not the way it works in san francisco. in san francisco every building permit is technically discretionary which means every building permit has a sequa component. it's interesting the planning department hearsay a deal with an enormous amount of sequa issues. preservation issues and non-presentation issues it's
. the law requires the appellant to show an absence of any reasonable relation between the impact of the condominium conversion and the amount of the fee. and more importantly the law does not provide for hardship exemption to grant the fee waiver or reduction. in the correspondence between the appellant and the city, the appellants case does not challenge the finding of the nexus study per say. the condominium conversion and the need for the affordable housing cost are not being challenged in the particular appeal. as stated earlier converting from tic to condominium creates the requirement for the impact fee regardless of whether the future condominium is sold or not. the nexus talks about both the impact of the conversion, but it doesn't hinge on whether the conversion actually happens today or tomorrow. in fact, the delayed conversion is actually more impactful to the affordable housing. the fee was established below the amount justified by the nexus. the fee is $20,000 per unit. there was fee relief provided to tic owners who previously participated in the lottery. there is a
to follow the law wants to allow them to do whatever they want and then wants to advise the bodies how to avoid giving documents to the public which would expose it. and like i said, i fought with herrera and that man is an intelligent man and i knew that the documents that i was asked that we are asking for and were disposal under the public record's act. and they fought me repeatedly over the public comment. and i have at least eight in finding them in violation of the law because they didn't like what i say because i think that you can understand it because i am pretty clear, but i will say one thing for me, that i can't say that for a lot of people on the boards or commissions, and i will look you in the eye and say that to your face anything and i would not say it behind your back, but my impression is that you sit there and commission and any comments you wait until we are gone and you wait until we are gone to make them. >> >> item 8, i will hear a motion to ayearn. >> and so moved. >> and second. >> all right. >> comment on that. >> all right. all in favor? >> aye. >> meeting i
'm an attorney i have 15 years of experience in the practice of law mostly in civil litigation and a business law. i also served as an arrest warrant trart so i have experience in ruling on matters. i'm a native of san francisco and i have an interest in serving the community and basically giving back to the city i love and want to see it grow. and i'm interested in serving on the committee. i've applied before so that would definitely show any level of interest in serving. thank you for your time >> thank you. next one up is christen nelson. and thank you, mr. rick for making a brief statement (laughter) >> good does that mean i can respeak. >> i'm interested in the appeal board. i value being active in the community and i also have a lot of experience in real estate and i thought the assessment board would be good with my experience, knowledge and skills. i've been active in real estate for over 25 years i became an awe perspires. i can be beneficial to the board i would understand as a property owner i would understand those points of view and as i said i think my skills and experience and
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 120 (some duplicates have been removed)